ORDER

S.K. Dhaon, J. - On 9th Aug. 1973, a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner Company and the representative of the workmen and was registered u/s 4-F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Act') and Rule 5(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Before the Conciliation Officer, one of the items of the settlement was "good attendance leave". The object of this particular settlement was to prevent heavy absenteeism. Certain incentives were given to the workmen. Under the scheme, allowance was made for 52 weekly holidays, 14 days for full paid leave, 9 days for causal leave and 11 days for festival holidays. It was provided that a workman, who had put in a minimum attendance of 268 days in the previous calendar year was entitled to 2 days leave during the subsequent calendar year, the workman who had put in a minimum attendance of 270 days in the previous calendar year was entitled to 4 days leave during the subsequent calendar year and workman who had put in 275 days during the previous calendar year was entitled to 6 days leave during the subsequent calendar year. Those workmen, who failed to attend to their duties for the minimum days referred to above, were not entitled to any good attendance leave. The settlement became effective from 1st May, 1973 and was to remain in force for three years and/or for such later period till it was terminated by a notice of termination from either side.

In the Year 1973-74 there was a lay-off in the petitioner's establishment for a number of days on account of shortage of power. In computing the good attendance leave the petitioner treated the period of lay-off as absence and deprived 1270 workmen, out of total number of 1320, of the benefit of the scheme. Dissatisfied, the workmen approached the Regional Conciliation Officer. Proceedings before that officer proved abortive, thereby necessitating a reference u/s 4-K of the U.P. Act. The reference was decided. On 6th May, 1974, the Tribunal gave an award and held that, the lay-off notwithstanding, the workmen were entitled to the advantages given to them under the incentive scheme. Hence this petition.

2. Section 2(n) of the U.P. Act defines "Lay- off" (with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions) to mean:

The failure, refusal or inability of an employer on account of shortage of coal, power or raw materials or the accumulation of stock or the break down of machinery, or for other reasons, to give employment to a workman whose name is borne on muster roll of his industrial establishment and who has not been retrenched.

This definition is analogous to the definition of lay-off as contained in Section 2(kkk) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'). No exception can be taken to the view that the terms of the settlement be-came a part of the contract of employment and. therefore the benefit given to the workmen under the scheme became a condition of service. The question is whether the workmen are entitled to the benefit of the scheme in addition to the payment of compensation for being laid, off.

3. Sections 6-K and 6-R were inserted in the U.P. Act by Section 8 of the U.P Act No. 1 of 1957. In the former provision the right to receive lay-off compensation and the manner of computation of such a compensation was provided. The latter provision dealt with the effect of laws inconsistent with Section 6-J to 6-0. For the purposes of present petition we are concerned with Section 6-J. Sub-section (1) of Section 6-R gave an overriding effect to the provisions of S.6-J over any other law (including standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The proviso, however laid down that nothing contained in the U.P. Act shall have effect to derogate from any right which a workman has under any contract with the employer. In Sub-section (2) it was clarified that the rights and lia